Asp's Take on Dual-Wielding, Chance etc.

1
Add a plain -1 to hit penalty to all close combat attacks made while dual wielding.

2
all attacks made with a Strength double or more the target's Toughtness wound automatically AND add +1 to subsequent injury rolls.

3
shields give a 5+ armour save. models also armed with missile weapons only benefit from shield in close combat.

4
armour negation table:
S1-5: nil
S6-7: -1
S8-9: -2
S10: -3
(no model should ever have a better AS than 3+ to begin with)

these are the foundations. there are lots of auxiliary changes that i'd recommend but these are the most far-reaching

Asp wrote:

1
Add a plain -1 to hit penalty to all close combat attacks made while dual wielding.

The big problem with this, as shown in the other thread, is that it's a harder hit on people with more profile attacks. It's a pretty huge nerf on someone with several attacks.

Quote :

3
shields give a 5+ armour save. models also armed with missile weapons only benefit from shield in close combat.

Interesting take on this... What about people who have a ranged weapon but aren't shooting though?

Quote :

4
armour negation table:
S1-5: nil
S6-7: -1
S8-9: -2
S10: -3
(no model should ever have a better AS than 3+ to begin with)

I've often thought the armor penalties came on too quick. I think this might be a bit of a large change. Also, shield + gromril is at least 2+, isn't it?

thanks for the reply and thoughtful recap of the consensus in the other thread regard plain nerfing being hard on models with many attacks.

regarding the plain -1 to hit penalty is still think taking an extra attack is viable, exploing the rules is called min/maxing for good reason, so for example if you had a model with A4, boosting him to A5 all the while reaping the benefits of the individual weapons' effects (sword, mace, axe) is acutally pretty good as you are maxing the purposefulness of a model

Quote :

Interesting take on this... What about people who have a ranged weapon but aren't shooting though?

we aimed for a rock paper scissors setup with this. - so if you take a bow you are also exposing yourself to bowfire, etc. - works out nicely

keeping track of which models did shoot and which didn't is too much bookkeeping, which isnt fun
also with this setup it is not ALWAYS better to stick a shield on every ranged model, though if you already have such a model you can still use it to good effect

Quote :

shield + gromril is at least 2+, isn't it?

yes, that is one of the auxiliary changes i'd make but i did not include in the OP not to swamp it. just like in our rules, no model is ever immune to S3, noone will ever get a better armour save than 3+. that way, you can safely move to AS-negation up to start at S6.

Asp wrote:

if you had a model with A4, boosting him to A5 all the while reaping the benefits of the individual weapons' effects (sword, mace, axe) is acutally pretty good as you are maxing the purposefulness of a model

You don't understand. Five attacks at -1 to hit is worse than four attacks without penalty. That's just math. It has nothing to do with what weapon special rules you get.

If English isn't your native language and you don't understand something, just say so and we will say it another way.

oh, i see when you have A1 you'd want to dual wield because

1 attack hitting on 4+ = 50%
2 attacks hitting on 5+ = 66,66%

but

4 attacks hitting on 4+ = 200%
5 attacks hitting on 5+ = 167%

i'll think about that and get back to you

Quote :

If English isn't your native language and you don't understand something, just say so and we will say it another way.

if phrasing youself so that people won't get combative isn't one of your natural faculties and you don't understand something, just say so and i will link you to a book on communication

(if you're going to say such things, take pains to say them in a way that cannot be interpreted as condescending)

Asp wrote:

oh, i see when you have A1 you'd want to dual wield because

1 attack hitting on 4+ = 50%
2 attacks hitting on 5+ = 66,66%

but

4 attacks hitting on 4+ = 200%
5 attacks hitting on 5+ = 167%

i'll think about that and get back to you

1 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 25% chance to injure
2 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 30.56% chance to injure

4 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 68.36% chance to injure
5 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 59.81% chance to injure

More attacks means larger nerf with -1 to hit for all attacks.

You're doing your percentages wrong. 2 attacks at 4+ is NOT 100% chance to wound. When doing percentages it's not simply the percentage for 1 hit x # of attacks.

Asp wrote:

if phrasing youself so that people won't get combative isn't one of your natural faculties and you don't understand something, just say so and i will link you to a book on communication

(if you're going to say such things, take pains to say them in a way that cannot be interpreted as condescending)

Why so serious?

Svenn wrote:

You're doing your percentages wrong.

Yes you are right, thanks for stepping up and helping out. so svenn, you seem to know what you are talking about, not like this philosopher who only reads books devoid of numbers.

so,

4 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 68.36% chance to injure
5 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 59.81% chance to injure

point taken. but isn't there some law of probability that says that rolling more dice and worse odds is almost often better in the end?

other questions to ponder:

in going from 4 to 5 attacks in the example above you give up ~10% net chance to injure. but you also gain the (off) chance of inflicting more wounds that you otherwise wound, yes? - and also a larger chance of inflicting critical wounds?

-------

ts061282 backtracking on your statement like that is exactly the kind of thing you'd say if i had just called you on your condescending behavior and you knew you were being a prick to begin with

Asp wrote:

ts061282 backtracking on your statement like that is exactly the kind of thing you'd say if i had just called you on your condescending behavior and you knew you were being a prick to begin with

ts061282 wrote:

i feel busted, i don't know what to say

Y'all can keep this discussion friendly, can you?

Asp wrote:

ts061282 wrote:

i feel busted, i don't know what to say

Hey... That's not what I said! Gwaaahhhhh... I PUKE ON YOU!

Asp wrote:

Ohh.... ts061282.... I looooove your puuuuuuuuke!

That's gross Asp. You are so nast.

cianty wrote:

Y'all can keep this discussion friendly, can you?

Was I talking to myself again? If so, sorry. I meant you too, ts!

Oh... sorry Cianty!

Accepted.
- cianty

Asp's take on dual-wielding deserves its own thread, as opposed to the rest of us lowly posters.

I guess our thoughts are not as important.

cianty wrote:

I too was wondering whether it would be necessary to create yet another thread for Asp's take on dual-wielding. But I do think it is warranted. Asp is less whiney than me when it comes to throwing conventions and standards overboard and just re-write the rules from scratch to get the best result. While I am all for this in the context of another game, I don't think it is worth the effort for Mordheim. This thread here, so I was hoping, was trying to achieve the best possible result while staying true to the Warhammer model and Mordheim engine.

As posted here. Now please, everyone, reduce your contributions to this thread to constructive criticism.

Svenn wrote:

Asp wrote:

oh, i see when you have A1 you'd want to dual wield because

1 attack hitting on 4+ = 50%
2 attacks hitting on 5+ = 66,66%

but

4 attacks hitting on 4+ = 200%
5 attacks hitting on 5+ = 167%

i'll think about that and get back to you

1 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 25% chance to injure
2 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 30.56% chance to injure

4 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 68.36% chance to injure
5 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 59.81% chance to injure

More attacks means larger nerf with -1 to hit for all attacks.

You're doing your percentages wrong. 2 attacks at 4+ is NOT 100% chance to wound. When doing percentages it's not simply the percentage for 1 hit x # of attacks.

Well, you can't just consider the percentage of EACH attack – you must see what the odds for the TOTAL NUMBER OF ATTACKS that hit would hit in close combat:

4 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 68.36% chance to injure (on a single attack)
68.36% x 4 attacks = 2.74 attacks

5 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 59.81% chance to injure (on a single attack)
59.82% x 5 attacks = 2.77 attacks

So the are rouhgly the same, actually, the 5 attacks at 5+ has a very slightly better chance to injure.
– popmouth

PS. O', and I do find this thread slightly unnecessary, considering the 400 post thread on the exact same subject. XXXX

Popmouth wrote:

Svenn wrote:

Asp wrote:

oh, i see when you have A1 you'd want to dual wield because

1 attack hitting on 4+ = 50%
2 attacks hitting on 5+ = 66,66%

but

4 attacks hitting on 4+ = 200%
5 attacks hitting on 5+ = 167%

i'll think about that and get back to you

1 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 25% chance to injure
2 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 30.56% chance to injure

4 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 68.36% chance to injure
5 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 59.81% chance to injure

More attacks means larger nerf with -1 to hit for all attacks.

You're doing your percentages wrong. 2 attacks at 4+ is NOT 100% chance to wound. When doing percentages it's not simply the percentage for 1 hit x # of attacks.

Well, you can't just consider the percentage of EACH attack – you must see what the odds for the TOTAL NUMBER OF ATTACKS that hit would hit in close combat:

4 attack at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 68.36% chance to injure (on a single attack)
68.36% x 4 attacks = 2.74 attacks

5 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound with no saves = 59.81% chance to injure (on a single attack)
59.82% x 5 attacks = 2.77 attacks

So the are rouhgly the same, actually, the 5 attacks at 5+ has a very slightly better chance to injure.
– popmouth

PS. O', and I do find this thread slightly unnecessary, considering the 400 post thread on the exact same subject. XXXX

Those percentages are the percent chance that at least 1 (if not more) attacks will make it through to injure. That encompasses all possible attacks. The 4 attacks at 4+ to hit and 4+ to wound has a 68% chance to injure, period. The 5 attacks at 5+ to hit and 4+ to wound has a 59.81% chance to injure, period. They have different percentages for getting 2, 3, 4, or 5 injures, but that's not important right now. If you have at least 1 injury, then you've done your job.

Ok my bad. I try to look cool with maths, and make a fool of myself – as always.
I'll withdraw to my social philosophy instead ^_^

It has always been the case in mordheim that if you have 3 or more attacks you shouldn't dual wield. Halberds, flails, or double handers are usually the best you can get.

If you're going to nerf dual wield, you really should only consider the possibilities when a model has either 1 or 2 attacks.